This editorial was sent to me by a fan. It is an opinion piece from CNN. As can be expected in the aftermath of any shooting that grabs headlines, two things are going to happen. 1. Liberals will knee jerk try to pin it on the right. 2. They’ll start bleating for more gun control. We got #1 when ABC news was trying to blame this on the Tea Party before the blood had even dried, and of course when that came back as untrue, just like it did with the Giffords shooting, they went right into #2.

Come on. Seriously news media? And there are still a handful of people out there who think that you guys are unbiased? They must sleep in helmets.

So as expected, the news is ignoring reality in favor of their typical happy bubble world. The media is busy butchering facts to fit their narrative. Anybody who is really knowledgeable about any particular topic has seen this before. Whenever I see a report about a topic I’m an expert on, it is usually crap. Or as Michael Crichton said:

“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”

And now we’ve got an opinion piece from CNN, where if you know anything about the topic, it is obvious the author is huffing paint, but if you’re not up on the subject, it may sound convincing.

The article was written by Daniel Webster, who is a college professor who runs an anti-gun “policy and research” center, my responses are in bold. And for the record, I am a former concealed weapons instructor, former gun store owner, have written for gun magazines, have participated in a whole lot of classes on this subject both as a student and as an instructor, and have testified before state legislatures on the issue of mass shootings. Basically for a period of about five years I professionally soaked up every single piece of information I possibly could on this subject, taught people how to deal with it, went through a bunch of training and have even played the bad guy in scenario training. (I make a great villain) To say that I’ve thought about this topic quite a bit would be an understatement.

(CNN) — Scenes from the mass shooting in an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater are horrific, but are all too familiar in the United States.

Some have argued that gun control is irrelevant to mass shootings because the perpetrators are typically so determined that they will overcome any legal hurdle to acquiring firearms. However, mass murderers often use assault weapons or guns with large ammunition capacity.

Let’s think about this, because this is going to come up a lot in the anti-gun thought process. Webster points out my side’s argument and then quickly dismisses it, like “oh, you silly gun nuts, crazy murderers will totally be thwarted by the same laws as law abiding citizens”.

Just last year, Anders Breivik shot 69 people in Norway, a country with gun control far stricter than America. (he also blew 8 people up with bombs, but I’ll come back to that later). In 2008, a group of terrorists completely shut down the city of Mumbai by going on an epic shooting spree. More than 300 casualties. India has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world (and in fact, has no “gun culture” to speak of, which led directly to their disastrous police response, but I’ll come back to that too).

The thing about all gun laws, and you really need to get this through you head, is that criminals don’t give a shit.

One of the guns James Eagan Holmes allegedly used to shoot 70 people within minutes was an assault rifle with a 100-round drum magazine. This extraordinary firepower enables gunmen to kill and wound more victims than they otherwise could if they used weapons that held fewer bullets.

There are a few problems here, and I’ll try to take them in order.

First off, the term “assault rifle” in this context means whatever the media needs it to mean. In actual gun nut parlance, an assault rifle is an intermediate power small arm capable of full auto fire. Which this was not, but to the media, any gun that is vaguely scary looking is an assault weapon. So if you’ve got a Honda Civic it is a car, but if you put a spoiler on a Honda Civic it is now a race car. No. It is still a Honda Civic. Words mean things.

Second off, as we saw during the Clinton years, what they really want to ban is what is actually known as a detachable magazine fed semi-automatic. Semi-automatic means that for each pull of the trigger, the action cycles itself because of recoil or gas pressure, and feeds a new round into the firing position. A magazine is the thing that holds the ammunition.

Here is the thing. We banned high capacity magazines once before. It did nothing. Absolutely nothing. For ten years. The only difference it made was that the law abiding now had defensive guns that held fewer shots than was intended, and once again, criminals simply did not give a shit.

So he had a hundred round mag… (which malfunctioned, because they don’t work that well). Normally a rifle like that would have a 30 round mag. However, somebody who is completely fumble fingered and totally inept can change a magazine in a few seconds. Somebody who has practiced can do it in two. Somebody like me who was paid in OPA* to shoot competitively can do it in one. (* Other People’s Ammo).

So let’s theoretically ban higher capacity magazines like we did once before. That will assuage this academic’s tender sensibilities. Let’s go clear back to 10 rounds like we had before… So the main difference will be that every law abiding citizen in the country now has fewer shots available for legitimate self defense (oh, and don’t worry, I’ll talk about why you need more shots here too), except that since there are literally millions of higher capacity magazines in circulation, the criminal will still have them, because remember, he don’t give a shit.

Wait? What? Yeah… Last time they banned high cap mags, we went a whole decade using old ones AND DIDN’T RUN OUT. So you’d have to ban new ones, confiscate old ones, and remember… Criminals don’t give a shit. (sensing a trend yet?)

There is obviously no need for any civilian to have such powerful weapons.

Au contraire. The founding fathers were far smarter than you, Dr. Webster. The 2nd Amendment exists as a final life insurance policy for the Constitution… Sure, I’ve seen lots of Facebook posts over the last few days talking about how absurd that is, which simply tells me that the author doesn’t know history, current events, or is simply willfully naïve as to how the world works.

Anyone who says that sort of thing can’t ever happen here is a fool. In 1900, Germany was the most socially, technologically, and culturally advanced country in the world. Thirty some odd years later they were a totalitarian murder machine.

But let’s forget about the real reason for the 2nd Amendment for a moment and look at Webster’s point. No civilian needs to have such powerful weapons…

Okay… He’s only mentioned capacity, not actual power (sort of like mixing up torque and horsepower, but whatever), because relatively speaking all of the weapons used in this particular shooting were relatively low power, i.e. he was shooting a glorified varmint cartridge rather than an elk rifle. So let’s concentrate on capacity. Why do civilians need guns that can hold that many rounds?

Effectiveness.

Rational gun policy, one that puts public safety ahead of the interests of the gun industry and gun enthusiasts, would ban firearms and ammunition clips that hold more than 10 rounds. Such a policy might not prevent many of our mass shootings, but it should reduce the number of victims from these incidents.

Why do I want a weapon that holds more than 10 rounds? Well, first and foremost, why do I have a self defense gun? It is a tool in my tool box used to solve a certain specific sort of problem. In this case, it is to defend myself from serious bodily harm from assailants. Notice the s on the end of assailant. As in plural.

10 shots isn’t many if you have more than one attacker, or you miss, or most importantly, contrary to the movies, when a good guy shoots a bad guy, the bad guy doesn’t fly backwards through the wall, do a flip, and catch on fire. Most defensive weapons simply poke a hole in the bad guy, which then bleeds, which causes a drop in blood pressure, which makes him stop trying to hurt you. Here in the real world, sometimes you have to shoot somebody multiple times in order to make them stop trying to murder you.

You’ve all heard the stories about the dude that gets shot 14 times by the cops and then walks under his own power to the ambulance. Nobody has ever gotten into a gun battle and said afterwards, “damn, I wish I hadn’t brought all that extra ammo!” Many times it takes multiple shots to stop a determined attacker.

//

Skeptics might point to the federal assault weapons ban (a section of the 1994 Violent Crime Control Act) that Congress let expire in 2004 as a failure that did not affect overall homicide rates.

Duh.

However, the law’s impact was limited by its narrowness that made it easy for gun manufacturers to evade.

Remember when I said assault weapons ban was a made up word? Well, that’s the problem when you try to legislate something that doesn’t actually exist.

The problem was that since assault weapon to the media is defined as anything scary, the basically banded Civics with spoilers, but couldn’t ban regular Civics.

And when a liberal says manufacturers “evade” he means obeyed the law. If the law said no folding stocks, we said okay, and put on regular stocks (one of the many items that were banned, yet which made zero functional difference).

A broad ban on the sale and possession of high capacity (more than 10 rounds) ammunition magazines with stiff penalties would translate into saved lives.

He asserts with no evidence.

Between 9,000 and 10,000 people are murdered each year with guns in the U.S., most garnering little attention.

Most garner little attention because the media doesn’t want to draw attention to the fact that most murders happen in cities run by liberals that already have harsh gun control laws in place. Like Chicago for example.

Local news coverage of such events typically provides scant information or context to enable citizens to understand the role of guns in these incidents.

BWA HA HA HAW Ha snort! Did you just try to blame the main stream media for failing to put the role of guns into context? The same media that never reports any positive stories about defensive gun use? Sorry, I have to pause to wipe away my tears.

Invariably, the only time that gun violence and gun policy are discussed in the national media is after a horrific shooting rampage.

Yep. You guys are perched like vultures, just waiting to see if you can capitalize on fear or tragedy.

We should not brush aside discussions of gun policy as too politically difficult to expect meaningful change, or “the price for our freedoms.”

Of course, when a liberal talks about freedom, he has to put the word into quote marks.

The reason nobody wants to talk about your gun policy is because your gun policy is stupid. This is one of those debates where most of the country has looked at your stupid way of doing things and said that it doesn’t work and we don’t want to do it anymore.

Your inner-cities are hell holes, and you blame us for the crime. Crazy people shoot innocents and you blame people who had nothing to do with it. You declare places like schools and movie theaters to be gun free zones, and they you blame us when nobody is there to defend them.

In fact, your single most reliable defense against this sort of attack is an immediate violent response, and since the police need time to get there, that means the immediate response has to come from the victim pool or not at all. Yet your policy is to kick us and our guns out of those places, that way the bad guys can work unmolested until the cops arrive.

Instead, we should reflect on why the U.S. has a murder rate that is nearly seven times higher than the average murder rate in other high-income countries

Oh really? And this is all about guns, and not about our failed Great Society, liberal inner city hell holes, gang warfare, our massive illicit drug trade, and all while comparing us to ethnically, racially, and socially homogenous countries far smaller than we are?

and a nearly 20 times higher murder rate with guns.

Because getting killed in England with a claw hammer is so much more awesome.

As Mark Twain said, lies, damned lies, and statistics. And statistics go right out the window the first time you need to defend yourself from somebody who wants to cut your face off and wear it as a hat and you really wish you had a gun to do it with.

Remember the thing with bombs earlier? Yeah… You make it harder to get guns, that’s the next option. The only reason they don’t get used more is that bombs are scarier to make, and take up to half an hour on the internet and trip to Home Depot to make, but once you get over that hurdle, then you can really cause some destruction. See for example, the rest of the entire world.

And what was the biggest mass murder at a school in US history? Michigan, 1927. And the crazy guy used a bomb.

And we should consider how flaws in current gun policies contribute to this disparity.

But wait… are these statistics even true? How about how the United Kingdom, a tiny island, with some of the strictest gun and even knife control, has some of the worst crime in Europe? An island, with the most police surveillance in the world, can’t stop violent crime, and can’t stop weapons from coming in. You might be a lot less likely to get into a mass shooting there, but you are a whole lot more likely to get your skull smashed in with a bat. And since mass shootings are extremely rare, but assholes who want to rape you and take your stuff are common, that’s supposed to be a net positive trade?

And yet we, who have individual states with borders bigger than the entire UK, with a hundred million guns already in circulation, are going to ban everything and crime is going to magically stop? I don’t think so.

Because let’s say it again, criminals don’t give a shit.

Standards for legal ownership and permits to carry a concealed gun are relatively lax in the U.S.

As they should be.

In most states, a person with a long history of arrests and convictions for misdemeanors (often pleaded down from felony charges), prior restraining orders for domestic violence and history of drug and alcohol abuse can own as many military-style weapons as he can afford to purchase,

Actually, that’s not even close to true. And since Doc here is a professional academic elite anti-gun think tanker, so he’s either deliberately lying or he’s just stupid.

When you purchase a firearm from a dealer anywhere in America you have to fill out Form 4473 for the BATF. On that form are a series of questions, including some of the ones above, and when we call this information in to the ATF or whatever your state criminal investigatory agency is, they run a background check. If you come up as ineligible, the dealer can’t complete the transaction.

So let’s really think about what he’s saying there… He wants people who were acquitted of crimes to be denied guns. He wants somebody who abused drugs twenty years ago to be denied the right to own a gun. (sorry Barack Obama, you’d be shit outta luck).

But really, let’s be honest, he wants nobody to have a gun, but he can’t come out and say that.

and can legally carry concealed guns almost anywhere.

Almost anywhere? Like the theater in Aurora? Oh, wait… Nope. Gun Free Zone. Virginia Tech? No… Also a Gun Free Zone… Hmmm… Columbine or any of the other schools that had shootings? Wait a second. Also Gun Free Zones. What about the Post Office? Well, huh… Gun Free Zone. What about some of these big workplace shootings… Why those are Gun Free Zones too? You don’t say…

Wow. I’m seeing two trends here. Gun Free Zones only keep out the good guys with guns and the bad guys know it, and second, criminals don’t give a shit.

Under federal law, anyone wanting to purchase a firearm from a licensed gun dealer must pass a background check.

Yes.

But in most states, the gun dealer who stands to profit from a gun sale, rather than a law enforcement agency, determines the authenticity of purchasers’ identification cards.

False. In fact, that’s not true at all. You have to call the information in to a state audit agency that then checks their records to see if that person has anything on file which would bar purchase. This would include criminal charges, court orders, and convictions. I’m assuming the doctor knows this and is just pulling facts out of his ass.

Gun dealers face little consequence if they fail to account for dozens of guns upon inspection.

HA! That’s a good one… Little consequence is hilarious. Oh wait, you’re serious? Dude… The BATF will burn your house down. The BATF will destroy your business at the slightest hint that you’ve done something wrong. The BATF has no mercy, no kindness, and well and truly enjoy ruining gun dealer’s days.

FFLs keep a bound book, all guns in, all guns out. If your bound book doesn’t match your physical inventory, then you get shut down and everything gets confiscated while the BATF conducts an investigation.

So unless you consider going to prison a little consequence, then chalk up another lie.

Data indicating which gun dealers sell the most guns linked to crimes are kept from public view and cannot be used in decisions about the dealer’s license.

Nope. BATF can revoke your license if they’ve got any reason. They even tried to throw the dealers involved in Fast & Furious to the wolves, except those guys were smart enough to document that the BATF had ordered them to go against the law and good sense.

Illogically, federal law and most state gun laws allow firearm purchases from private sellers with no background check or questions asked.

That is because we live in America and we still have private property. You are allowed to leave your guns to your kids. You are allowed to sell your firearms without the state’s permission.

And here’s the kicker, it is already illegal to knowingly sell a firearm to somebody who is prohibited by law from having a firearm. It is illegal to give a firearm to somebody who you think is going to commit a crime. Should you purchase a firearm from a dealer on behalf of somebody else who couldn’t pass a background check, you are committing a felony. That is called a Straw Man Purchase, and those are only okay when it is Eric Holder shipping thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels.

As a result of these policies, it is far too easy for dangerous people to own, carry and ultimately use guns.

And the easy availability of the internet and computers makes it too easy for dangerous people to spread dangerous ideas… See what I did there?

There are hundreds of millions of guns in the
US right now that aren’t being used to murder anybody. Go figure. It looks like the doctor is trying to convict people of pre-crime. You have a gun, ergo, you are dangerous and should be banned. Not really, doc. I’ve got a gun exactly because it is dangerous. The danger is what makes it a useful tool.

Following mass shootings, gun control opponents have not been bashful about pushing for laws to remove restrictions on carrying guns in schools, bars and churches.

You mean all the places where mass shootings happen, but the single best deterrent against mass shootings aren’t allowed? Friggin’ dur, moron.

Lie. Which is why we’ve all heard about Columbine, but not Paducah. That’s why we’ve all heard about Virginia Tech, but not Virginia Law School… Similar circumstances, yet one side of those coins had body counts that got the headlines and the other didn’t because there was somebody there with a gun to interfere with the bad guy’s plans.

In just my local area since I’ve been a professional gun guy, a crazy lady started shooting people at the KSL building in Salt Lake, stopped by a permit holder with a .45. Trolley Square, bad guy on a rampage was stopped by an off duty in normal clothing cop with just a pistol until the SLCPD got there and shot the dude to death. Couple of weeks ago, dude bought a butcher knife at a grocery store and started slashing the hell out of a bunch of people, until he got proned out by a permit holder coming in from the parking lot.

Oh, there’s more. Many, many, many more. And those are the rampages, which are statistical anomalies. You are way more likely to need your gun against a regular scumbag.

No. And in fact there is a lot of research that goes directly against that. See Mark Twain. We’ve been over this a million times already. If you torture statistics enough you can make them say whatever you want. John Lott wrote More Guns, Less Crime, showing a decrease in crime when the potential victims are armed, and all of the anti-gun think tankers have been playing catch up ever since.

But studies I have conducted indicate that stricter regulations of gun sales, whether by retail dealers or by private sellers, are associated with fewer guns diverted to criminals.

Yes. I should totally accept your non-biased study at face value. It isn’t like you are a biased, political hack shill with an agenda.

Moreover, national national surveys show that a large majority of citizens favor these reforms to our gun laws, including most gun owners.

And it is common in your world to give up your rights based upon surveys? I do not think I would wish to live in this place.

In addition, there is substantial research showing that law enforcement strategies that focus on deterring illegal gun possession reduce violent crime.

You know what else deters violent crime? Shooting criminals in the face.

Public health initiatives in Chicago and Baltimore, which use reformed ex-gang-members to reach out to youth, mediate disputes and promote alternatives to violence, have also been shown to significantly reduce homicides and shootings.

I live in Yard Moose Mountain, Utah. I should give up my firearms because midnight basketball in inner city Baltimore will curb gang crime. Gotcha.

But he doesn’t address the flip side, that depending on where you get your statistics from guns are used to PREVENT crime 2.5 MILLION times per year. Now that stat is from the NRA, so some of you will automatically throw it out. Okay, cool. Having done this before, I’ve also seen from other sources (remember statistics are all crap) 1 million, 800 thousand, or 600 thousand… And even if we went with the likely biased stats of the people who hate hate hate absolutely hatey-hate guns, the Brady Center puts the number of defensive gun uses at around 80,000, which means the Brady Center is totally cool with the population of your home town being murder-raped every year.

In most defensive gun uses, no shots are fired. Merely producing the gun ends the problem, because now you’ve gone from victim to work, and if the criminal wanted to work, he’d get a job. You’ll notice that in two of the three local rampages I posted, no shots were fired by the good guys. Just having effective resistance was enough to shut them down.

Only a small fraction of these deaths are connected to mass shootings.

Yup.

But the mounting deaths and associated trauma from mass shootings should motivate us to take action to make needed reforms to our gun laws, focus law enforcement resources on combating illegal gun possession and invest in prevention initiatives proven to reduce gun violence.

Midnight basketball, wishful thinking, and disarming the law abiding aren’t going to do anything to prevent these sorts of things from happening, The best thing to stop them is a bullet to the head. Fast.

America’s high rate of gun violence is shameful. When will we change?

Never.

Your side has already lost this debate. We tried your way and it was ineffectual. All you can do is punish the innocent while criminals well and truly do not give a shit. So now we are going to do it my way… Oh, and look at that, nationwide violent crime is down while concealed carry is up, except for in places where you don’t allow the good guys to have guns.

Besides, Ice-T is on my side.

Checkmate, motherfucker.

Picture from the anti-gun magazine Rolling Stone, because that made me laugh.

And since I’ve had to talk about this damned topic so many times, here are some other fisking posts about gun control going clear back to 2007:

Like this:

Related

118 Responses

I wonder what the out come of the shooting would have been, if five CCW with laser sights coming on have changed the game.
I believe we will see a “Mumbai” type attack here because the targets are properly “Marked” shooters.

The theater was a gun free zone. Meaning that even with a CCW you can’t bring a gun in. I’m betting that played a part in why the shooter picked this theater. Personally I will be avoiding gun free zones in the future for my safety.

one of the reports I’ve read says there WERE 5 CCW holders in the theater that night. None, had there weapons on them. What REALLY fries my ass is that had they HAD their weapons on them and then discharged their weapons and shot the son of a bitch, then because of the Gun Control laws of the city of Aurora,,THEY would have been brought up on charges. Criminal code of Aurora states that basically the discharge of ANY projectile weapon be it bow and arrow, crossbow, BB gun, slingshot[no I’m NOT making this shit up] let alone an actual firearm; in the jurisdiction/ city limits…is a crime.

Larry? could you cite your source for the “And what was the biggest mass murder at a school in US history? Michigan, 1927. And the crazy guy used a bomb. ” ? Because I think I know what you’re talking about (and kind of surprised that you’d know about it)

Great reply, Larry. Liberals hate the stats from Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime”. I have personally used Lott’s work in many of my college English papers ( always properly cited, of course). He is a great resource for writing argument against liberal gun control. Keep up the good work.

Wonder what would happen if every time there’s a report of a drug-runner stopped at the border, or someone hit in a hit-n-run, we fill this dude’s inbox with “ban cars! They’re dangerous and promote drug abuse!” emails? Or lobby to get computers and cameras banned, since that’s what people use to film/store kiddy pron…therefore the good doctor, owning a computer and (assumption here) at least a cellphone with a camera on-board, he must also be into kiddy pron. He should be punished.

Oh, wait….libs can use that argument on others, but we’re not allowed to use it on them. Fine by me. I really didn’t want to stoop to their level anyway. Its hot in that part of hell.

There was a pick up truck with 23 people in it here in Texas. IIRC lost control and hit a tree. 10 of those 23 people died. Don’t hear anyone saying pickups should be banned do you? Hell it’s pretty unusual you’d think THAT would be in the news. Only reason I know is because I live here.

Some years ago I did an informal study of mass shootings: every shooting for which I could find information. The result was entirely predictable: most shootings happened where law abiding citizens were forbidden, or at least highly restricted, from carrying firearms for self defense. Complete results of the study here:

“In most defensive gun uses, no shots are fired. Merely producing the gun ends the problem, because now you’ve gone from victim to work, and if the criminal wanted to work, he’d get a job. You’ll notice that in two of the three local rampages I posted, no shots were fired by the good guys. Just having effective resistance was enough to shut them down.”

This is basically what my Krav Maga instructors drill into our heads. Don’t be a victim, most of the scum will just give up if you show any sign of resistance. There are much easier targets out there than someone who will fight back.

Hopefully enough anti-gun douche bags will read this and it will cause some exploded heads due to the hurtful truth being pushed into them.

That only generally works when you’re 100% willing to pull the trigger and end their life (if they’re unlucky… seriously wounded if they’re lucky and get medical attention in time). Some people are starting to get the idea that it’s a near guarantee that the perp will stop and surrender, and therefore the gun owner doesn’t need to practice that much or even be that good of a shot… let alone take all that expensive training.

Let’s make sure we clean house and teach these idiots before we get a real incident where a knucklehead who thought the gun was a magic problem solver and never practiced finds himself in a real problem, shoots, but b/c of his lack of ability causes more damage than he prevents… and gives the anti-gun lobby all the ammo it needs to hammer us.

I’ve had to have serious talks with several gun owners or prospective gun owners who thought that “oh the criminal will most likely give up if I pull my gun.” My answer, “Maybe. You don’t know that. And the smart and most dangerous ones will be able to tell if you really do mean it or whether you’re just hoping he’ll be scared by the gun and go away… and if it’s the latter then you’re even more thoroughly screwed b/c you have a tool he can use against you and you don’t have the will to use it, but he DOES and it’s there for his taking. If you pull your gun you must be 1) fully prepared to end the scumbag’s life and 2) have legal justification for doing so, or justification for suspecting that you will imminently have to do so. Otherwise, it’s best to not get a gun. Get some training. You had to practice and learn to drive. Same with a gun. Know the laws, learn to obey them, just like with driving a car. And never assume that any violent encounter you may have to respond to by drawing your gun is going to result in anything less than with the perp dead on the ground… if it does end without that happening, all is well and good, but never assume the happy ending or else you’re going to get the really bad one… the one where you die.”

Fumble-fingers correction. “Otherwise, it’s best to not get a gun. ” should read, “Otherwise it’s best to not get your gun revealed and drawn from the holster.” I was thinking “If you can’t do this then it’s best you don’t carry” at the same time.

@Joseph, I agree. I’m saying that we need to take care of our own community. Even if you’re solid on your determination and training, there are probably others you’ll come into contact with who aren’t and have the “the gun is a magic ‘frighten the bad guy away'” want. When we figure out who they are, we need to educate them… for our own sakes as well as theirs.

“In most defensive gun uses, no shots are fired. Merely producing the gun ends the problem”.
This is why Brady has such low statistics for defensive gun use compared to everyone else. Brady only counts it as gun use if shots are fired. As most defensive gun uses do not involve shots (the sight of an intended victim with a gun causes the criminal to seek other employment at other locations), those non-firing uses aren’t counted by Brady..

Face slap? Really? So you are ex-military, maybe you’ve seen combat or were stationed in a hostile country for a period of time. Thank you for your service but think before you write. Put on a badge and patrol one of the “liberal hell holes” mentioned in this article and tell me you don’t have a right to call the sheeple civilians. Cops put 20 plus years into hostile territory and their switch is always on. Our rules of engagement are stricter than any that a soldier will face. Likewise any error, mistake, or over reaction by law enforcement is always publicized. If a cop commits a crime,1/2 of 1% do (less then Catholic Priests), the headline reads “police officer arrested for DWI”, how often does the headline read ex-soldier arrested for DWI? I will call whomever I please a civilian. In fact that goes for any military personnel in the United States or retired cops, if you are not on law enforcement patrol or occupying a foreign country you are civilian.

“Put on a badge and patrol one of the ‘liberal hell holes’ mentioned in this article and tell me you don’t have a right to call the sheeple civilians… if you are not on law enforcement patrol or occupying a foreign country you are civilian.”

Yep, we got an Only One here, folks. I’m sure that us-vs-them mentality will get you *lots* of good will and cooperation among the proles.

Newsflash, buster: words mean things. You got a tough beat? Irrelevant. If you are not under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ, you are a civilian. Claiming otherwise only makes you look like a self-important, ignorant ass. “Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.” Peel would be ashamed of you.

Also: “Our rules of engagement are stricter than any that a soldier will face.” Bull. The RoE in the sandbox right now is tighter than anything you’ve ever seen. Back home? I’d recommend asking Jose Guerena, but he was unavailable for comment.

I am not military, so I have no business using that word to describe others. Neither do cops who have not served.

Cops are not soldiers, no matter how much you would like to be honored as such.

They can quit their jobs at any time. Soldiers, once they take that oath, are potentially on the hook until they are no longer able to be in combat. They have written us all a blank check.

I consider police use of the word civilian to be an insult, and a means to deny that they are a part of the community they police.

The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
Robert Peel

And yet, a 12 year old kid can send a shoebox full of money to a completely unlicensed car dealer on ebay, and pay someone to deliver this death machine to his parent’s back 40, and turn cookies in that back 40, without ever getting a single shred of government paper or licensing.

How is this right? We must regulate these death machines, to prevent children from getting their hands on them, and having fun!

Maybe we can have the BATFE burn down the homes of these professional wheeled death machine dealers?

Evil men… that’s exactly what it has been all along from Cain murdering Abel to today.

Crime… crime never changes.

If this were back in the ancient roman empire, Danielus Websterus would be telling a man named Jesus, “Why did you tell your disciples to buy a sword? Don’t you know that if all men have swords there’ll be blood in the streets! They don’t know how to use it. Why, they’ll probably cut off the ear of some poor servant!”

Of course it’s never wise to argue with God. Not that that ever stopped a lib-tard… this side of eternity.

Yep ALWAYS blame it on guns, or movies or video games. That’s the liberal illogical way. Take me for example. Been watching violent movies since I was ohhh 9 or so…my parents how ever explained the difference to me between fantasy and this harsh, real buzzkill of a concept called…”reality” There for you don’t see me trying to act out movies and kill people in singles or wholesale job lots. Same with video games. Hell my favorite games are violent first or 3rd person killing and bloodfests My all time favorites? Doom, Castle Wolfenstein, [playstation edtion…better graphics] the God of War games, Mercenaries…etc

What is it with these know-nothings and their pathological obsession with trying to take our guns? I personally carry, per the license in my wallet, at every opportunity. You can add movie theaters to the list of venues.

Hey Larry? You gotta love this. Here’s statistics and facts…they DON’T WANT TO HEAR…this is all numbers I’ve dug up and then crunched myself.
The following is stuff from my blog. My last 2 posts…one of them earlier today.

As of last Census there were 310,000,000 people in the US. The murder rate for the last 12 years has been anywhere between 14,700 and 17,000. That 3000 point leeway hasn’t varied for more than that 12years..closer to 15.. On the low end 14,748 in 2010[the last year I can find numbers for.] and on the high end of that scale 17,030 in 2006. The highest the murder rate has EVER been was in 1991 when there were 24,700. The number of of citizens in the US for those years are 308,745,538 in 2010, 299,398,434 in 2006, and finally 252,177,000 in 1991. So lets take those numbers as a percentage of population 14,748 is .004% of the population. Or for those of you who have forgotten your basic math as it pertains to decimal points. that’s 4 THOUSANDTHS of a percent of the population.. In 2006 with 17,030 murders…that’s .005% or 5 THOUSANDTHS of a percent. Now for 1991. 24,700 is .009% or 9 THOUSANDTHS of a percent of population. Now how many of those are mass murders? AGAIN less than 1%…that hasn’t changed in more than 2 decades. So really do we have THAT big a problem or are people just seeing the numbers and saying Oh my god!, having an intensely emotional reaction and forgetting to think logically.

Again those are just murders in the US. Gun Grabbing pussies try and futz the numbers by counting suicides and accidental discharges by death. They call it “Death by Gun numbers” They try and say it’s the same every year. Wrong.. I hate gun grabbers…they’re lying back stabbing fuckwits who don’t give a rat fuck for the safety of the “people”. “Gun Control” has never been about safety. It is and always has been about “Control! Control! Control!” [name that movie]

The other way they try and blow up the number is by Per Capita calculations. Which is “Deaths per 100,000” of the population. They use THOSE numbers to make this big deal out of gun violence…when it’s as my numbers show…not really that endemic. It only seems that way because of the damn 24hr news cycle and the 24hr a day news stations…that thrive on ratings delivered by scandal, mayhem, tragedy and blood.

Remember boys and girls even the courts will tell you
“The constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It tells the state to let the people alone, it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as providing law and order.” So…having said that….

Here’s some more…

Sigh…all these people calling for Gun Control? do the math people! I have. Crime rates, or rather the NUMBER of crimes go up…with population growth. but the PERCENTAGE of total population that was killed so far as I can ascertain for last 40+years…has stayed within, by and large that 4-9 THOUSANDTHS of a percent of the population Case in point? 1960. Population 179,323175. Number of murders? 9110. percentage of the total population? 5 THOUSANDTHS of a percent of the population. Mind you the following are just pulling random years out of the statistics and doing the percentages
Year Population murders PoP[percentage of population]
1970 203,235,298 16000 8 THOUSANDTHS of a percent.
1976 214,659,000 18780 9 Thousandths of a percent.
1984 236,159,000 18690 8 thousandths ”
1989 248,239,000 21500 9 thousandths ”
1997 267,367,000 18208 7 thousandths ”
2003 290,690,788 16528 6 thousandths”
2010 308,745,538 14748 5 thousands ”

I looked to see who the top 10 countries in the world were for Murder rates. Care to guess where they are? The bulk of them are in South and Central America. The rest? Well SURPRISE! SURPRISE! SURPRISE! The rest are on the African Continent. Big. Fucking. Shock.
NOT!

Larry…you’re right. The MSM [or as I call them alternately either Mainly Sewage Media or MAssively Shitbrained Media] don’t report on those defensive uses. They don’t HYPE those defensive uses that save lives..because they don’t fit the narrative. Chaps my ass.

Here’s another statistic for you. Venezuela under Chavez and by his orders closed the last gun shop in the country early this year…or maybe it was the latter part of last year. I forget. Too lazy to go look up the damn article again. That being said…Venezuela under the benevolent leadership of Hugo Chavez [would you hurry up and die already you piece of shit? sheesh!] has 9500 murders…in just the FIRST 6 MONTHS OF THIS YEAR. Oh and this in a country with a population of 28 million. Only 2.3 million more than the state of Texas. [Not including all the illegals we’ve got in this state] How many murders were there in TEXAS? With a population of 25.7 million in 2010[last year I can find the statistics for] There were a WHOPPING 1249 murders…for the ENTIRE YEAR. Yep..Texas is the wild wild west alright. *snort* So…wanna tell me again how bad we got it here in the US?

THANK YOU
i did not know about those facts. I only hear the numbers the media puts out,but your numbers really puts reality in persective. Again thank you for your and larry’s hard work presenting cold hard facts.

Hey Larry, A couple of minor things you missed while dissecting that article.

The US Homicide rate being 7 times higher than other high income countries is complete BS. the only way to get that is by leaving out countries like the UK, Canada, Australia.

The over 30,000 people killed by guns each year is also wrong, Its actually under 28,000 If you look at the source for the over 30,000 it is including times where the intention was homicide but the victim was not killed. According to the FBI there were 9,146 homicides with firearms in 2009 (the year of those CDC statistics)http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html
Even if you take the suicides from that CDC web source (again it includes attempted) it gives you 18,735

First though I’ll state as I’m English and have never been to the US I have an entirely different slant on this issue.

Let me first question various statements that the UK is a violent place to live. It isn’t, I’m approaching 50 and have neither seen or experienced violent crime. I suspect that our higher reported figures are down to the UKs obsession with accurately collecting stats, other countries take a more relaxed attitude to the collection stats. In the UK if you keep clear of the ‘dodgy’ areas of major cities you’re unlikely to encounter violent crime. I’ve passed though these areas without issue. Gun and knife crimes are mainly gang related and inter-gang. I suspect influenced by the glorification of gun crime prevalent in much imported US TV drama.

As to gun control in the US, it seems to me this would be a case of shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted. So many people in the US already have guns you need one to keep up with the Joneses. A case of MAD I suppose. I suspect if I were to live in the US I’d want a gun although the thought of a gun in a house with children is frightening.
My main point is gun possession may work for you in the US but I’d prefer to stick to current general prohibition in the UK. The only guns I see are in military parades are those carried by police at international airports.

“I’m approaching 50 and have neither seen or experienced violent crime.”

That you, personally, have not experienced it does not really mean much. Most people in the US have personally neither seen nor experienced violent crime _either_. All of the things you talk about for “avoiding” violent crime also work over here. That things are largely “inter gang” (criminals attacking and killing other criminals) also applies over here. You just hear about the exceptions.

The problem is that the “bad guys” don’t always _stay_ in the “doggy areas” and one can easily be “caught in the crossfire” of “inter gang” violence. And the police have no legal responsibility to protect you as an individual (not because they don’t want to but because they _can’t_–they can’t guarantee to be present in time should something bad happen).

You have to be ready to protect yourself or accept that you’re not going to be protected at all.

Well Mark I must have been pretty unlucky. in the 3 days i was IN the UK (1997 durring a major heat wave) I saw a mugging in progress, (west end) I saw a stabbing (isle of dogs comming out of a pub) And a medium sized fist fight (2 blocks off the strand victoria) (admitedly the fist fight is pushing my definition of violence)

None of which are particularly “dodgy areas” by my definition. Of course working in Baltimore MD, (see “The Wire”) my defintion of dodgy is skewed towards Active shooting in progress from multiple directions and the cops are nowhere to be found.

Joe,
I’m sorry you had such a bad experience. I’m not sure I’d categorise the West End as particularly safe.
When I visit London I tend to stay arround Covent Garden or the City and certainly wouln’t travel off the trodden path, but then that attitude probably applies to any major city.

I think fights outside pubs are fairly common, but are hardly serious.

What I was trying to get across is that the UK is not as bad as it is painted in previous comments.

If you judge counties by their TV, most murders in the UK are carried in rural location (Midsommer Murders, Inspector Morse) but most in the US are guncrime (CSI franchises, NCIS).

To quote another brit who gets it: “The truth is that until 1920, Britain’s gun laws were so relaxed they made Texas look effeminate, but we had virtually no gun crime. That only really began to increase here after we abolished hanging.” ~ Peter Hitchens

“I suspect that our higher reported figures are down to the UKs obsession with accurately collecting stats, other countries take a more relaxed attitude to the collection stats.”

This is 180 degrees out of phase with reality.

The Home Office has been publicly castigated for “cooking the books” on crime figures on multiple occasions. Further, your reported numbers are based on convictions; You don’t have a murder until you have a murderer convicted. USDOJ figures for murder are based on actual dead bodies.

I’ll let you ponder how that skews the numbers of other crimes, like rape and assault…

“In the UK if you keep clear of the ‘dodgy’ areas of major cities you’re unlikely to encounter violent crime. I’ve passed though these areas without issue. Gun and knife crimes are mainly gang related and inter-gang.”

Ditto here. And when it comes to a night out on the town, well, speak to anybody who’s spent a weekend evening in the “city centre” of any fair-sized metropolis in either the UK or the US. I have plenty of friends, both Yanks and Brits, who don’t recommend being out among your yobs after dark of a weekend unless you are in a large group yourself.

(Another fun bit of anecdata: As a sometime motorcyclist here in the US, I only know one friend who’s had their bike stolen. I don’t have a single motorcycling friend in Old Blighty who hasn’t had at least one bike nicked.)

“I suspect if I were to live in the US I’d want a gun although the thought of a gun in a house with children is frightening.”

This tells me everything I need to know. I just cannot understand the kind of man who finds an inanimate object in the presence of children “frightening”, yet thinks nothing of the hundreds of volts coursing through every outlet in his home, capable of stopping those little toddler tickers right in their tracks…

in my house as well as the one I was raised in, we don’t kidproof our guns, rather we teach them the gun, what it is capable of, and how to handle it properly and more important UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES. each of my children know the locations of sevral weapons and have ones of their own, At 16 I had a loaded shotgun and .22 rigle in my closet with full knowledge of my parents. My kids know that if someone is breking in the door, to retrieve their weapon ( the youngest is only allowed her bow) but castle doctrine rules here and they will defend themselvves, their family and their home….this was the way it USED TO BE in most cities untill the 60’s…..sadly, most folks these days in cities have no choice but to call 911 and HOPE that they don’t get put on hold…although it is not reported by the lamestream media, kids all over this country can and DO use firearms and other weapons to defend themselves SUCCESSFULLY. That is one messag that doesn’t get passed onfor fear it may embolden others, rather let them play video games to sharpen their killing skilss so that when they do find a loose gun they only know how to kill with it…and yes the sight of one does deter most criminals….

Sorry Tam, but ‘cooking the books’ does not preclude an obsession with collecting stats and British Government of all persuations hasve an obsession with collecting stats.

I must also take exception to your term ‘blinkered’, ‘sheltered’ might be a more acceptable term. I’ve seen no evidence of a ‘crime-wave’ but then I don’t live in a city, nor do most Britains. Perhaps your personal experiences are colouring you view. The on;y crime wave I recall was last years rioting which was over so quick I missed the whole thing on annual holiday.
I have no interest in getting into argument, all I was trying to convey was that the UK is not as bad as it is painted in previous comments.

I’ve only had to draw my firearm a couple of times in 51 years and have never had to pull the trigger. I am an armed security guard, a CCW permit holder, former miltary serviceman, an active competitive shooter for 39 years, as well as a gun dealer with my own FFL for 6 years (until Clinton was elected), and worked in several gun shops.
I also carry non-lethal weapons on a regular basis because deadly force is not always the most appropriate response to the situation.
I’m not paranoid; I am prepared and pay attention to my surroundings and what is going on around me.

1. The crocodile tears. This includes the False Moment of National Unity, during which people proclaim that events like this bring us together,

2. The blood libel. With no data, motive is assigned to some conservative group or belief. This proves false 100% of the time, but like a tattoo, the accusation can never be entirely removed.

3. The Rorschach test. Every politician and pundit on earth pens an editorial explaining how this one isolated event has a much broader meaning that proves everything he’s been saying for the last 20 years.

4. Something Must Be Done. A national debate ensues on how to make sure that something like this never happens again.

5. Suzy’s Law. Congress vomits forth a bipartisan bill that no member dare vote against. For precisely that reason, the bill includes a litany of unrelated pork and policy for both parties that could never otherwise pass. In exchange for a few billion dollars and a bit of your liberty, the president, surrounded by beaming legislators, offers a few cloying words about “what this town can do when people put their differences aside” and ostentatiously signs “Suzy’s Law”, a new set of rules that, had they been in place before the tragedy, would have made absolutely no difference.”

The right to own guns is an individual right protected by the Bill of Rights. Not only does the SCOTUS rule so, Lawrence Tribe (famously liberal and anti-gun Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard) said so before the Supreme Court ruling. So any gun control advocate who is not ready to do the heavy lifting of getting an amendment to the constitution passed obviously believes that the Political Class should not suffer from any restrictions to their authority. Such people scare me one hell of a lot more than spree-killers. For one thing, there are more of them. For another, when they get into power somehow they seem to end up committing genocide. Stalin and the Georgians. Cardinal Richelieu and the Huguenots. That Austrian Corporal with the silly mustache and the Jews.

Want Gun Control? Draft and amendment to the constitution that would allow it, or we are not under any obligation to treat you seriously.

For anyone that has not read zerohedge, its a great site. Its ran by several guys who all post under the same name (Tyler Durden from Fight Club) Many of the stories are way over my head and most relate finance but they cover many topics that everyone should be knowledgeable about.

If , by some electoral catastrophe, I was elected Mayor of New York I would order the city building inspectors into the UN complex, and then close it permanently as unfit for human habitation (anybody want to bet me it ISN’T a catalog of safety and health violations?). My ultimate goal would be to replace the UN with an institution less corrupt and less damaging to society; a combination legal brothel and gambling casino.

HOLD UP. The Jackwagon mentions gangs in BALTIMORE??? I KNOW Baltimore I WORK There. I DRIVE THROUGH THERE EVERY DAY AND I USED TO BE A HACK (Gypsy Cab) IN BALTIMORE!

Baltimore has a Gang problem and its GROWING. Yes the Murder rate is going down but street crimes like muggings and gang fights are skyrocketing. See Issues on Saint Patricks day and 4th of July Last year and this year Oh and New Years eve and The Otakon and other Convention Center Message Boards about how bad this city is.

They are Cutting down and destroying SKYWALKS to slow down pedestrian travel around Downtown baltimore So gangs have to cross the street to get to eachother and so that gangs cant use the skywalks as ambush areas.

Having had to draw my CCW to come to the aid of an officer who dropped his weapon in the struggle with a suspect, I know for a fact that having a gun doesn’t mean you had to use it (pull trigger) Know when I draw it that I am willing to splatter body material on the far side of the advesary, has kept my weapon in it’s concealed location many more times. The asshat professor has an agenda, that much is obvious, timing of this attack to the small arms treaty is suspect as well. One thing I want to suggest to all who read this is”If ” this small arms treaty is signed, we will hand over soveignty of our firearms to the UN and will loose our right incrimentally. By signing this treaty (which Harry Reid has aready said he will block a vote on in the Senate giving the intial authority to Obama to sign) Obama will violate his oath to “uphold and defend” thereby committing high treason, an Impeachable offence. Please readers contact your congresscritter now and make sure he informs Obama up front that impeachement WILL come as a result of signing this treaty….either that or prepare for armed thugs to kick in your door to ensure your safety by removing your guns…….

I did a small paper on this topic a few years ago. It’s nice to see my conclusion backed up more facts that I had easy access to, and an expert who is far more knowledgeable on the subject than I.

One thing I’ve been curious about; now many assaults are committed with motor vehicles? It would be difficult to find out, since I would expect the majority to go unreported, but I’m willing to bet that more people are injured or killed intentionally with cars than with guns; by number and percentage of ownership.

SirShades, in the Amarillo Texas area (largest metro district in the region where I live), I can think of three assaults/ attempted assaults with deadly vehicle this year, and about three others come quickly to mind, going back to the late 1990s. Not counting a few “started with guns or knives and then tried to flatten someone while fleeing.”

There should be questions asked about every thing these bozos try to do to limit law abiding gun ownership and use.

1) Does this law prevent bad guys …and girls..from getting guns?
-The answer will be a resounding ..welll..ah..maybe. It is actually,NO.
2) Does this restrict bad guys …and girls…from using other weapons to do the same or similar crime? Like Lead pipes, knives, machetes, swords, kitchen implements, household tools, shovels, etc?
-The answer would be a resounding .NO! Why? because…
“Jimmy crack corn and…you got it…THEY DON’T CARE!”
3) So while law abiding citizens have few guns and abilities to protect themselves against bad guys …and girls…with guns, what do you propose to enact to stop the bad guys…and girls…from using these illegally obtained firearms against law abiding citizens?
-Hmmm…your lack of an answer is disturbing is not telling. There is no law that prevents someone from from breaking the law because…
“Jimmy crack corn and…you got it…THEY DON’T CARE!”

So our lesseon ends with this one important fact. You liberals don’t really want us law abiding to have guns, but you want the police and military to have guns because guns are useful tools to stop crime.

-What? A challenge? Cite a country that has little gun crime and almost no chance to be invaded? Where citizens are required to have guns? Wow! That’s a hard one, but I’ll try. Hmmmm…come to think of it that’s too easy. It’s Switzerland. All homes are required to have AUTOMATIC weapons! Gun crimes are almost non-existent, and would to want to face millions of Swiss with fully automatic weapons and know how to use them? No, didn’t think so.
Because the Swiss know one thing aboput bad guys….and girls.

Beautifully put Larry, but you’re not gonna change his mind you know? Libtards all ‘know the truth’ and evidence, facts and reality count for nothing, it’s feelings they go for (and manipulation of the former to fit). Guns are ‘EVIL’ and since he’d go on a rampage if he even saw a handgun, you would too, so you shouldn’t have one.

Mark P’s comments struck a chord though. Why? Because I’m English too (a nurse who’s worked A&E in London and now in a small regional city). I’ve (in common with the coppers I know) seen and dealt with some of the aftermath of the crime-wave sweeping Britain. Most is never reported or recorded (and most of what is is unaccountably recorded in a manner that downgrades its severity – mugged? recorded as theft, Threatened? Assaulted? during. Ah well, never mind! Just a theft). Most people go through life here choosing not to see, or simply accepting it (almost like the characterisation In Michael Williamsons – Freehold – where Earthies see rape or mugging as a minor, normal inconvenience).

Britain is, on the whole, a safe place to live (just as most of the US). Crime rates are relatively low except in certain areas. It’s entirely possible not to be involved as a victim for 50 years (Mark) if you ignore the car crime, thefts, burglaries, assaults, avoiding certain areas at certain times etc. that are now seen as a normal part of life. But woe betide you if you attempt to defend yourself, or expect any reasonable response from the ‘Justice’ system. Taking like for like, inner cities and metropolitan areas here will have equivalent crime rates to those in Chicago et al ( victim disarmament areas, who’d have thunk it?). The only difference being the reduced (note reduced, in a country with the toughest gun laws in the western world) gun crimes (they just use knives, clubs, machetes, etc. instead).

So, Mark, judging Britains crime rate by your limited (blinkered?) view of regional life, with a few visits to daytime tourist hotspots of London, is not really a thorough examination. Just Sayin’. You may disagree, but go stand outside a police station or A&E in any town on a Friday night and see the tiny percentage judged serious enough to actually arrest and consider the rest. Or better still have a walk, of an evening, alone through any cities ‘less salubrious neighbourhood’ and wonder (just make sure you have ID and a donor card).

As another commenter said, the crime rates tend to reflect the cultural make-up of an area. Culturally, ethnically, socially diverse areas (especially with large numbers from certain countries) have massively greater crime rates than the more homogeneous ‘traditionally British’ areas (Thanks New Liebour for all that cultural enrichment!).

You set up about 20 different straw men and then lo and behold you knock them down. You take a few of the more radical arguments of one professor, who has a fairly radical view, and act as if the entire gun control debate is characterized by those views. This editorial a bunch of rhetorical flim flam that obscures the real issues in a hail of hyperbole and antagonistic hate speech. Yes, I get it, you hate liberals. Yes, I get it, you think you are very smart. But the end result of your argument is that you get a bunch of followers on your blog, and you has made zero progress towards a useful examination of the facts. The reality is this: every gun massacre in the US has been committed with legal guns. That is just a fact. There is only one possible conclusion from that: our gun laws are not restrictive enough to prevent lunatics from getting guns and using them to commit massacres. The ridiculous notion that James Holmes would have gone and got a set of illegal guns is just conjecture. HE DID NOT. He did not need to. Nor did the kid in Virginia, the kids in Columbine, or any of the other massacreing lunatics we have seen. There is no hiding from the fact that lax gun control laws have resulted in easy access to guns.

There are no serious people saying we need to ban guns in the US. Just like there are no serious people saying we need to require everyone to be armed. The serious people in this debate are saying we need to make it more difficult for lunatics to get guns.

The notion that “criminals dont care about laws” therefore laws restricting access to guns dont affect criminals, is just weak thinking. Surely there are some criminals who, when confronted with an inability to get a legal gun, will find a way to get an illegal gun, but it should be clear that there are also criminals who will fail to get an illegal gun. This is obvious, since we know that there are people who are not allowed to get guns now, but we have never seen a massacre committed with illegal guns.

I despise this author. He is the kind of person who lowers the debate to name calling and wasted time. He is the kind of person who obscures the real problems and the real debate in his self-serving effort to get more “likes”.

Instead of erecting indefensible straw men, this author should try to act responsibly, do some real research, and try to present an argument. There is no argument presented in the rant he has written here. Just a bunch of logical fallacies and misconceptions, interspersed with outright lies.

As usual, conservatives are unable to think with their logic instead of their emotions. You cast about for something to hate, then you blow your wad hating it.

Confront these facts:

Every nation on earth that has more restrictive gun control than the US has lower gun violence than the US.

Every massacre in the US that has used guns has used legally acquired guns.

There is no mental health screening required for a person to purchase a gun in the US.

There is no training required for a person to purchase a gun in the US.

Switzerland (the holy grail of anti-gun control idiots who dont take the time to learn anything about Switzerland other than the oft-repeated and erroneous notion that everyone in Switzerland is required to own a gun) has incredibly restrictive laws about guns. They are far more restrictive than ours. Go read about it…not just the headline, the whole thing.

Not just any dumbass can go buy an illegal gun. Speaking to the author of this silly editorial: If I am an illegal gun dealer, and you show up to buy a gun, and you dont have either a serious reputation or a gang, I will point my gun at you and take your money, then I will laugh about the idiot suburbanite who thought he could buy an illegal gun, while spending your money on drinks for my bros. This is the reality of the black market. You dont get fair deals with criminals unless you have some threat to hold against them. This asinine, romantic notion about how badass you are will not sustain you when/if you actually manage to find someone who sells illegal guns – which you wont, because they are far more savvy than you and they know damn well not to do business with some wannabe.

THIS IS WHAT GUN CONTROL REALLY MEANS:

1. Every person who wants to own a gun has to take a serious course in gun safety, including how to store, disarm, clean, inspect, and fire all kinds of rifles, pistols, revolvers and shotguns.

2. They then have to pass a rigorous test to show they retained that knowledge.

3. A mental screening conducted by a certified professional. If they cant pass that, they dont get to own guns legally.

4. A complete background check. Any history of violent crimes bars them from owning a gun.

There may be some other parts of this, but those are the main points that matter. These are the kinds of things that Obama has mentioned. He has not once said anything about “banning” guns. The supreme court has upheld the right to bear arms twice in the last decade, and those are the ONLY two cases that have brought the matter to the Court in a direct fashion. Obama did not disparage those decisions.

What responsible person do you know who would be prevented from owning a gun by those measures. Who do you know who could not pass those requirements but who you think should be allowed to own guns? Think of ONE person, and I will consider that you may have a valid argument against these measures.

THE DEBATE should be on issues such as:
how long after failing a test can a person retake the test?
should there be different levels of gun ownership rights – some people only want to own hunting rifles, or shot guns, but some others want to own pistols too?
should ammunition purchases be tracked?
should a person convicted of a violent crime be allowed to prove themselves worthy at some point in the future?

I, and every other moderate liberal out there, agree that gun ownership is a right. Clearly, our nation was founded on the rights of self defense and independence. I own guns (lots). I am very responsible with them. But not everyone is. We have so far NOT TESTED the ability of real gun control to reduce the incidence of accidental and purposeful gun violence in the US. We should.

It is irresponsible to have a debate with yourself, based on arguments made only by the most radical person you can find, on this issue. Real people are being killed because the right refuses to have the real debate.

Oh, and to all the wannabe vigilantes here, stop stroking yourselves. Do you seriously think there were NO guys with guns in that theater? Guess what, if there were any guys with CCWs in that theater, they forgot they had guns on them. Good thing too, because it is certainly the case that a person who is startled, scared, and confused is far more likely to shoot an innocent bystander than he is to shoot the right guy. You are not Mel Gibson in Lethal Weapon. You are probably a fat, balding suburbanite who wishes his life was more exciting. Be thankful you were not there, and doubly thankful you were not there with a gun. You would have most likely either embarrassed yourself, or shot a child.

Hmmm… So much good fiskable nonsense in one post. I’ve got to see if I can squeeze in the time to write a proper blog response. Erroneous facts, bad assumptions, and a complete misunderstanding of the definition of several words. I really need to squeeze a response into the schedule. There is some comedy gold in this one.

So, if guns were illegal the bad guys wouldn’t get them because you would have to go to great lengths to get them. But isn’t murder illegal and typically one must go to great lengths to commit it? What about how homemade bombs are illegal and one must go to great lengths to obtain the knowledge and materials to make a bomb and a detonation mechanism?

And here’s a pro-tip. It sounds silly to write about how wrong it is that someone is hateful and then go and say that you despise them.

Aaron, it astounds me you can commit such an amazing contradiction of your own thoughts in such a small amount of discussion.

Not only have you made dozens of statements without facts to back them up (one of your own accusations), you spouted your own personal opinion and called it fact (another one of your accusations), then went on an emmotional, abusive rant (again another one of your own accusations).

You exemplify the “liberal” mindset here by bringing in your emmotional, illogical thoughts and presenting them as fact (ironicly another one of your accusations) and epitimizing the hypocrital, illogical, emmotionally driven thought process is destroying this country as we speak. Oh and the last function of the “liberal” mindset you represent is that you need to feel superior, especially intellectually, to those around you. Check!

I don’t even know where to start with your “points”, but I will tell you one thing that amazes me about people with your mindset and where I will start for today: The government can help.

Yes, that’s right. Let’s give the government more control over the right of the people that our founders thought SO important that they made it the second one. That’s right, its number two for a reason.

Let’s put the idiots who brought you all of the other disasters that are destroying this country in charge of determining whether I am sane enough to own a firearm. Let’s put yet another bureaucracy in place to validate whether I have any mental defects that should prohibit me from owning a gun. Let’s charge the people more taxes and build infrastructure for yet another failed government organzition, or better yet lets increase responsibility, funding and the size of the already proven corrupt ATF organization. Great idea!

You must have amazingly positive life experience with government organizations to think they can somehow improve the process without bias by the people at the lower levels of government. Heck you already have local police departments who do everything they can to prevent people from getting a permit because the “chief” doesn’t believe it that nonsense and he hires people with the same mindset. You don’t think that will happen with any process you create?

I can see it now, just replace your motor vehicles experience or any other government run organization for that matter, just knowing how well that works. Sure, I don’t see any problems with that.

And of course YOU don’t see issues because, hell, you don’t intend on owning a gun… so WHO CARES what those OTHER people have to do! Glad I gave up my freedoms so I don’t have to go through that crap!

Oh and another stupid, factless point you made about having to go through a background check every time I buy a firearm? Ya, we do that now. Educate yourself (hell, maybe even read Larry’s piece which clearly states this as well) before you make factless statements and present them as facts (oh ya, another one of your accusations).

Why don’t you go read up a little on firearms laws in the US, crime statistics in the US, and what law abiding citizens of this country have to go through to get a concealed carry permit and purchase a firearm before you join a discussion on one.

Then when you are done with that read up on those other countries you lump into your factless tirade which fall amazingly and perfectly in line with your world view. BTW, that should be your first clue that you don’t have your facts straight when everything works perfectly for your point of view.

Come back with some real facts not just what you want to believe and start behaving like you are requesting others to do.

I’m curious about the statement “every gun massacre in the US has been committed with legal guns. This is just a fact.”

Does Aaron mean “with guns that would have been legal for [someone] to own or possess,” as in the case of a responsible citizen who passes background checks, or that every massacre was committed by the weapons’ registered owners?

The first does not make any useful statement at all. I mean, I would not expect gun massacres to be committed with nerve gas. Unless, despite Aaron’s claim, he really does want to ban guns, in which case it boils down to the sort of “guns are inherently dangerous to everyone, and therefore no one should own them.”

The second is not actually “true” in the sense of being factually correct, though it is certainly “true” in the sense of “I want to say something that supports my views”. For a specific case in point, look up the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.

One of your ‘facts’ is clearly erroneous. The Trolley Square shooter had acquired illegal guns. The shopkeeper who sold him the guns was taking to trial for it. You can even find information about it on the Brady site. So saying that “Every massacre in the US that has used guns has used legally acquired guns.” is an incorrect statement.

One could also point out that every gun massacre by a government of its own people has been commited with legally owned, registered, and regulated guns. It’s just that the government, and only the government has them, and if they just happen to not like a precentage of their population, well, that’s just too bad.

Joe, he is only concerned about individual crazy people acting on their own volition. Apparently once you belong to a government organization or become an elected official you can go crazy without ramification or impact on society.

Bravo on this article, great takedown of Webster, a renowned fool. And this praise is coming from a CCW…gasp…liberal. To parrot a commenter above, not all liberals believe in strong gun control or are anti-gun.